exco

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:31 pm

I don't know if we're allowed to do this or not, so I guess just tell me and I will delete this post if neccessary.

Its a little late, but I was talking to a fellow GM about the ExCo voting and we got to talking about why I wanted to be on it, and I figured that was information I should give out to everybody... so here goes my infomercial.

1) Minority opinion - I think its important for someone on the ExCo to represent the GMs who are all about winning now, and don't like to play the prospect game. It's important when we're talking about rules that have had a major effect on our league, like the AA rule for instance.

2) I dedicate a lot of time to this league. I am one of the more active GMs, and more sociable, as many of you know by me bothering you AIM or Gchat. Point being, I'm not hard to find or get ahold of.

3) The Blogs. I like trying to come up with ways to make the league a little more fun, and not to sound arrogant, but I think the blogs were a HUGE addition to the league. In addition to coming up with that idea, I originated the interviews, and have been patiently waiting for someone to volunteer to be the next subject. I think they both add a little something, or in the case of the blogs, a lot of something to the league.

Anyway, this is dumb, so I'm not going to keep on... I had more to say on free market trading, draft pick trading, roster sizes....but now that I think about it this whole campaigning thing might be a little much and a little too late... I just want everyone to know my reasons for wanting to be a part of the ExCo. And the great part about it is you don't like my contributions, you can get rid of me in a year.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:28 pm

Funny how the other election had a lot to do with 'free markets' and their effect on the average american... (PS... unregulated markets = BAD)

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:18 am

I'd be fine with being interviewed...

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:14 am

I think interviews should be done for everyone. A gm every two weeks or something. I enjoyed them alot.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:37 pm

I'm available at any time for interviewing.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:37 pm

If I'm onlne I'm probably available as well.

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:14 am

Dear Candidates,

I know it will likely never happen with the amount of league wide opposition, but what I want from an exco candidate is someone who is very open minded to the expansion of organizations from the current 50 players. Please share your views on the topic.

Thanks -JT

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:26 am

DBacks wrote:Dear Candidates,

I know it will likely never happen with the amount of league wide opposition, but what I want from an exco candidate is someone who is very open minded to the expansion of organizations from the current 50 players. Please share your views on the topic.

Thanks -JT

I wouldn't be totally opposed to that if it was done by expanding the amount of players allowed that were not in the database (draft and 0 players). However if that were done I think we should also rule that if a player is in the database (regardless of draft year) he can no longer be in the draft category. In other words a player like Inman on my team would no longer be able to be counted as a "draft" player because he is in the database. I wouldn't support doing the first thing without the second.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:32 am

Yeah, I'm in favor of expanding roster sizes slightly. I think it's time. The bigger concern to me is the draft identifiers and roster breakdowns. The whole idea of having two years to evaluate draft picks before cutting them lose is ridiculous in my mind. Because I think the chances of getting roster sizes expanded are slim, I think it's extremely important than GMs are able to use each and every vital roster spot for whomever they want. It should not matter if they are in the dbase or what year they were drafted.

We have matured enough as a league and as GMs to be trusted to use our roster spaces however we want to. It's your team, you put together the 50 guys that you think make your organization stronger. We have so many unneccessary restrictions in this department that I would like to see go away.

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:41 am

That's always been my thought, make the 40 man rosters be SIM players ONLY, and the 'draft' roster expanded to include "0" players. It would make the league more competative as a whole because even the worse, most rebuilding teams would always be able to fill 25 spots with healthy SIM players when they have 40, regardless of how bad.

If you look around the league, even some of your best teams don't have 40 SIM players. Just a quick skim thru, many team have about 33 SIM players. I don't see that changing all that much, I don't see teams signing scrub 5.55 ERA players instead just staying under the 40 players like several MLB teams do.

So in essence, say we went to a 20 man 'draft' roster or 'non-sim' roster. Those 20 spots I assume will always be filled, but it will be tough to have a full 40 SIM players. Example, Yanks have 35, A's 33, the Jay's 38, etc.

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:48 am

Nick = 1 point

Gabe = -1 point

Just kidding, but I'm a traditionalist, I want to be more like MLB, not less, and Gabe having 50 plus players in the SIM, no thanks.

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:55 am

Oops, I meant:

Ken = 1 point

Gabe = -1 point

I realized as I was pushing "submit", but we have no "edit" option.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:04 am

The problem I have with that idea is that we leave a lot of things up to who DMB decides to include in the SIM. A lot of prospects make the sim...but their projections are utterly useless. This punishes GMs, because they wouldn't be able to count these guys as "non-sim" players, yet they have no business being on their 40 man sim roster.

I think the draft portion of our rosters should be changed to include any players at any level. However, everyone on this portion of your roster is ineligbile to be used during the season. That way, you don't have to get rid of your 2006 picks in December of 2008 if you don't want to. There's no useless restrictions. And you're not relying on DMB to decide how a player fits onto your roster.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:18 am

That would be a logistical nightmare. If the draft/0 roster was increased one would be able to have a larger quantity of prospects but once a player enters the database he would have to go on the 40, at that point you would have to determine whether keeping him was worth ditching a backup/bench player. That system would increase the pool of backup/bench players and also be very simple to keep track of. This would likely mean that when a position player goes down to injury during the season that the quality of replacement player who is available in the free agent pool is probably going to be better because they couldn't be hoarded.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:26 am

I dont know how designating 10 guys on every roster with an X is any more a logistical nightmare than having hundreds of players floating around with 0s, 6s, and 7s.

The point is, tons of valuable prospects will make the sim with useless projections, and GMs will have to give them up because we are once again placing restrictions on who teams can carry and who they can't. The simplest way would be to let everyone carry whoever they feel makes them the best team for the present and the future, but that thought doesn't seem to go over so well with some people.

It should also be noted that I have brought this up before, and over half of the GMs in the league were in favor of it.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:34 am

Major league GM's have to make decisions on who (or who not) to place on The 40 man roster all the time. Because of that there is always a certain portion of veteran players available in the offseason and sometimes well into the season. We have no control over who DMB is going to project but in several cases major league GM's must place players on the 40 who have no shot of helping them in the current season. But if they want to keep them they have to place them on the roster to avoid the rule V and since we do not have a rule V this can be one way of achieving a similar result. But as I said in an earlier post it should only happen if an expansion of the draft/0 roster also happens.

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:41 am

Great Debate!!!

I've got the CNN viewer graph going and Ken's lines are going up while Gabe's are going down. But I appreciate Gabe showing up to the debate instead of suspending his campaign.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:44 am

DBacks wrote:Great Debate!!!

I've got the CNN viewer graph going and Ken's lines are going up while Gabe's are going down. But I appreciate Gabe showing up to the debate instead of suspending his campaign.

Unfortunately I will have to suspend for at least an hour because I have a meeting I must go to. Be back later.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:51 am

Yes, GMs have to decide who to put on the 40 man roster.

They are also free to decide who they have in the minors.

One idea features a 40 man roster and a secondary roster of players that you cannot use. The other features the same thing.

The difference? You want to restrict who can be on the secondary roster. I think it's easier for us as a league to get rid of the hundreds of 0s and 6s and 7s that are floating around, and allow GMs to carry whoever they want.

Both ideas accomplish the same thing, just one does so without more needless restrictions.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:00 pm

The restrictions aren't needless because without them there is no way to prevent teams from using secondary roster spots for major league players. It's not like we have a 25 man and you have to waive them to send them down.

Okay it's noon and now I really, really have to go.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:14 pm

And why would you want to prevent teams from putting MLB players on their secondary roster?

It serves so many purposes. Whoever has Pat Neshek (who will miss all of 2009), under the system I prefer, could put him on the secondary roster, and wait for 2010. That would be their right, since they went out of their way to acquire him. But with your system, they have to give him up, or waste a 40 man roster space. It's not like we have a 60 day DL in the IBC.

There's no reason to restrict how a GM wants to run his team and which players he can sign. Some guys want to load up on prospects. Other guys want to load up on MLB players. Why can't both types of GMs be allowed to run their teams how they want?

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:52 pm

The 60 day DL issue is an important point. I have always felt we needed a DL for long injuries because of the way our roster rules are setup. I could use one for Westbrook now, and could've used one for Capuano who I needed to cut to make room for a player.

However to increase roster sizes from the current 50 to lets say 55 and not have some sort of restrictions would lead to a drain on the available major league ready talent. Even if the increase didn't happen and we just left it at 50 but removed the draft exclusions we would still experience problems because even if only half the teams used all the spots for database players there wouldn't be much left. All one has to do is look at whats available now to see there is not very much left that is worth a spot in the current free agent pool.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:58 pm

And why would you want to prevent teams from putting MLB players on their secondary roster?

Because the "secondary" roster is intended to somewhat mirror the minor leagues in the MLB. It was never intended to result in IBC managers carrying 50 SIM capable players. The draft rosters have always been intended to allow IBC GM's to carry low minor league level prospects without it impacting their ability to carry 40 SIM elegible players if they want to. It is the choice of the GM to carry more prospects than what is allowed on the draft rosters if they choose to.

MLB teams can't send MLB veterans down to their minor league system without having to pass them through waivers, so it is not the same thing as carrying 50 SIM eligible players on an IBC roster.

I think it has already been established that 40 is plenty of roster space to carry IBC eligible players on, even if you happen to have 2 or 3 season ending injuries to players.

If we are trying to at least somewhat mirror what professional baseball structure looks like, I don't see any benefit to expanding the 10 player draft roster to include another 10 SIM eligible players just so teams can horde more MLB level players to suit their need.

I mean really, where is this going? Is the next step going to be people clamoring for open/unrestricted 75 man rosters so they can horde more players than we already do? GM's should have to make decisions on what players to keep and what players to cut, at some point. We already have enough GM's drafting 16 year olds so they can stash them on their rosters for the next 4-5 years as they make their way to the majors.

It just seems a bit outlandish to me.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:09 pm

Well, that is not true.

First, no one could "send a veteran down" during the season to make room on their 40 man roster. Your 40 man is your 40 man, and that's it.

And last time I checked, ANYONE can sign a minor league deal. Let's not forget, most AAA players and a lot of AA players are in the sim. So you're not just saying MLB guys can't be on the secondary roster, you're saying AAA and a lot AA can't either. So, we're not "hoarding" MLBers. We're talking MLB, AAA, and AA.

These guys we would be "hoarding" - a lot of them are going to be those fantastic AA and AAA projections of a 6 ERA and 9 innings pitched. That's hardly "sim capable." And the GM is gonna be punished because DMB decided to include that useless projection?

We either keep things the way they are (and since roster sizes have never been that big of an issue, I imagine we would) or we change things to benefit everyone. It doesn't make sense to punish GMs for DMB giving their valuable prospects bad projections.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:46 pm

Well, that is not true.

I don't think you understood my points.

First, no one could "send a veteran down" during the season to make room on their 40 man roster. Your 40 man is your 40 man, and that's it.

Not sure what you are arguing here. Are you talking about the MLB or the IBC? I'll try and answer the best I can without really knowing where you are going with this.

If you are referring to my comment that allowing non-draft players (ie. MLB vets or SIM eligible type players) to be added to the 10 man draft roster in the IBC, then that IS just like allowing MLB teams to be able to send MLB veterans to the minors without having to pass them through waivers. There is no logical reason to need to add more SIM eligible (ie. mlb vets) to our 10 man draft roster, OTHER than to horde more MLB level players. If someone doesn't want to build a minor league system or draft players in the IBC they don't have to, they can manage their IBC team with their 40 man eligible roster.

Its not like an MLB GM can all of a sudden decide they should have a 50 man protected roster just because they don't want to have to subject a player to the waiver wire.

I guess in the end I have yet to see a logical reason to expand the 40 man rosters, other than so IBC GM's can horde more MLB level players, which I don't personally think is a good idea, but to each their own.

We either keep things the way they are (and since roster sizes have never been that big of an issue, I imagine we would) or we change things to benefit everyone. It doesn't make sense to punish GMs for DMB giving their valuable prospects bad projections.

Obviously we differ on the subject. I don't see it as punishment if a GM doesn't want to have a draft roster. I also don't see it as punishment if for some reason a mid-level prospect ends up getting a crap projection before he really deserves one. We've already addressed that issue by allowing drafted players to stay on the draft list, regardless of whether or not they are in the SIM, as long as a GM doesn't use them. As soon as a GM uses them in the SIM, then they can't go back on the draft roster. Thus no impact for those players when it comes to being poorly included in the projection disks.

As far as AA and AAA players not being allowed on the secondary "DRAFT" roster. They shouldn't be, they aren't draft players, there is a reason we've called it the "DRAFT" roster, it is because it is suppose to be used for rececently DRAFTED players. AA and AAA players should be on your extented 15 man roster. That is your roster that is suppose to be used for the upper minor leagues, just like the MLB teams have a 25 man active roster and then an additional 15 slots to fill up their 40 man roster. We have our 25 man active roster and then 15 additional non-active spots to store some of those AA and AAA players who aren't quite ready to be on your active roster and then the rest you can use for reserves who have decent projections.